No More Learning

But all that we
learn of Chares and Charidemus relates to acts of
extortion and insolence rather than of military
success. Afterwards, in response to a final and more
urgent appeal from Olynthus, a citizen-force was sent
under the command of Chares. The efforts made
by Athens in the latter part of the Olynthian war
must have been considerable. We are told by
Demosthenes (19 ? 266) that Athens had sent to
the aid of Olynthus 4000 citizens, 10,000 mercen-
aries, and 50 triremes.
After capturing and devastating the 32 cities
of the Chalcidic confederation, Philip marched
against Olynthus itself. On arriving within 40
furlongs of the city he sent a summons intimating
that either the inhabitants must evacuate the city or
he must leave Macedonia (9 ? 11). They resolved
on defending themselves to the last. Many of the
Athenian citizens of the latest reinforcement were
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? THE EVIDENGE' FOR THE TEXT lxix
still within their walls (Aeschin. 2 ? 15) ; but Athens
sent no further aid. At length the partisans of
Philip brought about the banishment of their principal
opponent, Apollonides, and treasonably surrendered
the city. In an engagement near the walls one of
these partisans betrayed his force of 500 horsemen
into the hands of the invaders (9 ? 56; 19 ? 267).
In the latter part of 348, all the Olynthians,
men, women and children, were sold into slavery.
The city was destroyed, together with the 32
Chalcidic towns including Apollonia and Stageira:
five years afterwards their very sites were scarcely
discernible (9 26). Grants of productive and
valuable farms are said to have been afterwards
made by Philip to Athenian partisans, such as
Aeschines and Philocrates (19 ? 145); but the
traitors who had sold Olynthus were dismissed with
dishonour and contempt. At Dium, in Pieria, which
had been the scene of splendid festivals since the
days of Archelaus, Philip commemorated his con-
quests by a festival in honour of the Olympian Zeus,
with prizes for athletic or poetic distinction. The
legendary home of the Muses, and the earliest of
all the conquests of Macedonia, thus witnessed the
celebration of the fall of Olynthus and the failure
of the cause which had inspired the eloquence of
Demosthenes.
VIII On the evidence for the Text
For the text of Demosthenes our primary authori-
ties are the MSS. Of these there are as many as
170 in existence; but, for the Speeches included in
this volume, the most important are those denoted
by the symbols S, A, Y, O, P and B.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? lxx THE PRINCIPAL MANUSCRIPTS
S (or 2) holds the first place among these. It is
a MB of the tenth century, now in the Bibliothe? que
Nationale, Paris (no. 2934 of the Greek MSS). It once
belonged to a monastery of ' Sosandrian' monks, so named
from a Galatian martyr, Sosander; it is accordingly
known by the initial letter of its former owners. The
first page of the Leptines is reproduced in my edition of
that Speech (1890); and a facsimile of the whole us
has since been published (Paris, Leroux, 1893). The
general excellence of this Ms is admitted on all hands.
Its readings are often accepted in Bekker's editions
(1823 etc), and still more frequently in that of Baiter
and Sauppe (1841). Its value is estimated with greater
discrimination by Cobet (Novae Lectiones p. 515) and
Sliilleto (preface to de Falsa, Legatiom).
A, or Aug 1, the codex Augustanus primus, formerly
at Augsburg (Augusta Vindelicorum), now in the
Konigliche Hof- und Staatsb'ibliothek at Munich (no. 485),
belongs to century XI, and ranks next to S in importance.
(The Laurentian MS L, end of century XIII, comes next to
S for 01'. 6--11 and Or. 18--24, but does not include Or.
1--5. ) In Or. 1--4 A is much mutilated, containing only
1 ? ? 8--14, 2 ? ? 16--24, 3 ? 244 ? 3 (=p. 111. 12--
p. 13 1. 16, p. 22 1. 22-1). 25 1. 6, p. 35 1. 12--1).
41 l. 1 Reiske). It is only from 4 ? 28 onwards that
it is complete. The missing portions are supplied by
ten leaves of far later date containing 1 ? 11--4 ? 28 (p
12 l. 15--p. 48 l. 1 Reiske), known as Supplementum
Augustom'i primal or A supp].
(Aug 2 and 3 in the same library belong to century xv. )
Y, or T, codex Parisinus 2935, probably belongs to
century in.
O, or Q, codex Bruxellens'is, formerly at Antwerp,
carried off to Paris, restored in 1815, and now in the
Bibliotheca, Burg'zmdica at Brussels. Its date is early in
century XIV.
I', codex Venetus, no. 416 in the Biblioteca. Marciana,
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? THE PRINCIPAL MANUSCRIPTS 1m
Venice; assigned to century x1. It is the best ms of
Dindorf's ' second Glass,' but is closely followed by B.
B, codex Bavaricus, no. 85 in the above-mentioned
library at Munich ; century x111.
(Pal I and 2,formerly in the Palatine Library at Heidel-
berg, now in the Vatican, are inferior mss of cent. xv. )
In Drerup's view L, O and B have no independent value.
The early papym' found during the last few years in
Egypt include two small scraps of the Second Olynthiae,
from 10, 15 (see Classical Rem'ew vi 430). The read-
ings are the same as those of our ordinary mes.
The lexicon to the Attic Orators compiled by
Harpocration in the second century A. D. contains
many references to the earliest commentator on
Demosthenes, the industrious Alexandrina gramma-
rian Didymus, who belongs to the age of Augustus. 1
It also mentions, in only five passages, the readings
of an important recension of MSS known as 'A-r-rt-
Kumi, apparently transcribed by one Atticus, who is
identified with the copyist of that name in Lucian
Adversus Indoctum 2, 24. Of the readings so
quoted from Demosthenes, one (e'moqufiam for e? K-
aroAquaat in 1 ? 7 and 3 ? 7) is found in S alone,
another in all our MSS (Navxpun-rmd 24 ? 11), and
one of two alternatives, s. v. dvekofiaa 22 11, in
none. The MSS B and 1' have a note at the end of
01'. 11 stating that that speech had been revised (in-b
Sta-'A-rnmeve? iv, but there is nothing to connect the
'A-r-rmmwi with any of our existing MSS, the earliest
of which was transcribed at least eight centuries
later than the time of Lucian. 2
Next in importance to the evidence of our MSS is
1 Didymi de Demosthene (01'. 10--13) commenta, ed. Diels
and Schubert, 1904.
2 Blass Praefatio to Teubner text I xiv, xv, Drerup Antike
Demosthemsausgaben 1899, p. 15 (Philol. Suppl. vii 545).
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? lxxii E VI DENGE FROJII CI TA TIONS, E T 0'.
the evidence of citations in rhetoricians, such as
Dionysius of Halicarnassus (ii. 30 13. 0. ), Aristeides
and Hermogenes (both belonging to the second
centi1ry), and the still later Rhetores Graeci. Re-
miniscences and imitations of Demosthenes have
been also traced in writers such as Dio Cassius (about
155--229 A. D. ), Lucian (H. 160 A. D. ), Libanius (fi.
350 A. D. ), Julian (331-363 A. D. ), Chrysostom (347--
407 A. D. ), Isidore of Pelusium (about 370-450 A. D. ),
and Choricius of Gaza (fi. 520 A. D. ) The evidence
derived from citations and imitations appears to be
far too highly estimated in the Teubner text as edited
by Blass. The MSS of the above authors are certainly
no better than those of Demosthenes; the same
passage of Demosthenes is sometimes cited differently
by different authors, and even by the same author.
Thus what, at first sight, appears to be a direct
citation, sometimes proves on examination to be
little better than a general reminiscence. As such it
is of little value as evidence on the text, though it
possesses a certain degree of literary interest as
testimony to the abiding influence of the study of
Demosthenes.
In settling the text certain laws of composition
have also to be considered. It is observed by
Dionysius that while Demosthenes has more sense
of euphony than Thucydides, he has not the uniform
smoothness of Isocrates, but that on rhythm he
nevertheless bestows the utmost pains (dc 'Dem.
43--52). It is also noticed by Cicero that, in com-
parison with Isocrates, Demosthenes to a great extent
regards the concourse of vowels as a fault, and avoids
it accordingly (Oratorg 151). In the more highly
finished speeches of Demosthenes, when the choice
lies between a reading involving a hiatus and a
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? LA Ws 0F COMPOSITION lxxiii
reading not involving it, other considerations being
about equally balanced, the latter is more likely to
represent the original text. The extent to which
hiatus may be removed, either by transposition or
by conjectural emendation, is a point on which
editors differ. Blass goes further than others in
this respect. 1
Again, by a law of composition discovered by Blass,
Demosthenes, so far as possible, avoids the consecu-
tive use of three or more short syllables, except where
the three syllables are included in the same word, or
in combinations virtually equivalent to a single word.
It is to the observance of this rule that we may
ascribe the steady and stately march of the prose
of Demosthenes as compared with that of Plato.
The question arises how far we are justified in
removing exceptions to this rule by resorting to
conjectural emendation ; and here, again, the dis-
coverer of the rule is apt to go further than other
scholars. 2 The same holds good of various minutiae
of rhythmical correspondence between consecutive
clauses or sentences. 3 Different editors may well
assign different degrees of weight to such considera-
tions 5 and even the same editor may hold different
opinions at different times. Thus, on all the points
above mentioned, on rhythmical correspondences, on
the avoidance of hiatus and consecutive short syllables,
and on the exact degree of importance to be assigned
to reminiscences in later writers, we have to dis-
tinguish between the first thoughts of Blass, as
represented in the first volume of the Teubner text
(B11), the 8561-epai qbpovrtSes as revealed in the
Addenda to the remaining volumes (B12), and the
1 Alt. Ber. III i 100--52. 9 ib. 105--122. 3 ib. 127 f".
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? lxxiv SELECT LIST OF EDITIONS, ETC-
Tpt'rat ? povrides in his editions of the Philippic Orations
and the speech 0n the Crown (1313). 1 These repeated
confessions of changes of opinion reflect the highest
credit on the candour of the eminent scholar in
question.
They are apt, however, to create mis-
givings as to the wisdom of setting aside the
evidence of the M88, and putting in its place what
' after all can only be regarded as uncertain inferences
from vague reminiscences, or as unduly strict applica-
tions of theoretical rules of composition which may
perhaps hold good as a whole, but which Demo-
sthenes, as a practical orator, may possibly have
followed without absolutely rigid uniformity. The
text of the present volume, though founded mainly
on that of the Teubner edition, not unfrequently
departs from it, not only in cases where Blass him-
self has changed his mind, but also in others, where
the evidence of the M58 seems too strong to be
overruled.
IX Select List of Editions, Dissertations, and
Books of Reference
TEXT
(1) JGBaiter and HSauppe Oratores Attici, Ziirich 1850.
(2) IBekker Demosthenis Orationes, stereotyped ed. , Leipzig
1854. (3) JTVoemel Dem. Contiones, Halle 1857. (4)
WDindorf Dem. Orationes [Leipzig 1825, Oxford 1846], ed.
tertia correctior (Teubner), Leipzig 1855 ; ed. quarta carreetior,
edidit PBlass, 1885-9. (5) Thalheim neun Philippische Reden
(Teubner), Leipzig 1897'. (6) SHButcher Dem. Orationes I
(01'. 1-19), Oxford 1903.
1 On the general questions of textual criticism suggested by
the latter edition, I may refer to Professor Butcher's admirable
article in the Classical Review v 309-15.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? L
Sfl E0 T LIST OF EDITIONS, ETC'. lxxv
COMMENTARIES
GENERAL
(1) GHSchaef? r Apparatus criticus ad Dem, London (vol. i)
1824. (2) WDmdorf (vol. v) Ainwtatimws Interpretum ad
Or. 1-19, Oxlord 1849; (vol. viii) Scholta Greece, 1851.
SPECIAL
,(1) VLucchesini 01'. 1--6 etc. , cum n-otis. . historicis, Rome
1712. (2) RMounteney 01'. 1-4, Cambridge 1731; ed. 13,
1820. (3) CARiidiger 07'. 1--5, Leipzig 1818; ed. 2, 1829.
(4) JHBremi 01". 1--4 etc. , Goths. 1829. (5) JTVoemel 01'.
1--5, Frankfurt 1829. (6) FFranke 01'. 1-6, Leipzig 1842; ed.
3, 1871. (7) HSauppe 0r. 1-4, Gotha 1845. (8) AWester-
mann 0r. 1--6, 8, 9, Berlin 1851; ed. 10 (Rosenberg), 1902.
(9) RWhiston 01'. 1--18, London 1859. (10) HMWilkins
Olynthiacs, 01'. 1--3, London 1860 (out of print). (11)
CRehdantz 01'. 1--4, Leipzig 1860 ; ed. 8 (FBlass), 1893. 1 (12)
GHHeslop Olymhiacs and Philippics, 01'. 1--4, 6, 9, [10], London
1868. (13) CSchmelzer on 01'. 1-3 in Studien zm' Redekunst
i, Guben 1869. (14) HWeil les meng'ues de De? mosthe'ne, 0r.
1--[17], Paris 1873; ed. 2, 1881 ; also Sept Philippiques,
school ed. 1896. (15) TGwatkin First Philippic, 01'. 4, edited
after Rehdantz (Macmillan), London 1883. (16) JSZSrgel Or.
1~4 (for beginners), Gotha 1883; ed. 8 (ADeuerling), 1907.
(17) EAbbott and PEMatheson 01*. 1-4, Oxford 1887. (18)
ABaran Schiller-Cmnmentar zu Dem. acht Staatsreden, 01*. 1-6,
8, 9 (for beginners), Vienna, ed. 2, 1894. (19) 03111011 Sept
Philippiques, school ed. , Paris 1894. (20) FBTaIbell Philippics,
0r. 4, 6, 9, Boston, U. S. A. [1880], 1896. (The editions by
Brauning, Hanover 1891, Regan, Paris 1893, and Windel.
Bielefeld 1896, are quite elementary. ) (21) TRGlover Olynthians,
Cambridge 1897. (22) GADavies Philippics, Cambridge 1907.
1 ed. 9(KFuhr),1909.
LEXIGOGRAPHY, TEXTUAL CRITICISM etc.
(1) Harpooration. ed. Dindorf, Oxford 1853. (2) Rhetores
Graeci, ed. Walz, 1832--6. (3) CRehdantz Indices, Ted. 4
(FBlass), Leipzig 1886. (4) SPreuss Index Demosthenicus,
Leipzig 1895.
(1) PPDobree Adoersaria (ed. Scholefield), Cambridge 1833 ;
(ed. Wagner) Leipzig 1875. (2) CGCobet Miscellanea Critica,
Leyden 1876. (3) KHalm Be-merkungen zu Dem. ~in Com-
mmtatioms philol. in honorem Mommsem' pp. 694-704, Berlin
1877. (4) Karlowa Sprachgebrm/ch des Deon, Pless 1883.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? lxxvi DEM OS THENIC' LI TERA TURE
(5) ERosenberg Came Demosthehicae, Hirschberg 1887. (6)
J'May an Kritik (ler Reden ales Dem. , on Or. 4, Leipzig 1894--5.
(7) EDrerup Antike Demosthenesmesgaben in Philalogus, Suppl.
vii (1899) 533-88, and Dem. -ilberliefemmg, Miinchen 1902.
DEMOSTHENIC LITERATURE
GENERAL
(1) KGBb'hnecke Forsehungen eta, Berlin 1843-64. ('2)
Arnold Schaefer Dem. nnd seine Zeit, 3 vols. , ed. 2, Leipzig
1885. (3) FBlass die Altische Beredsamlceit, especially vol. III i,
cd. 2, Leipzig 1893. (4) SHButcher Demosthenes (Macmillan),
London 1881.
SPECIAL
0n Gr. 1--4 etc.
(1) LSpengel die dynn'yopiat rles Dem. I, ll, Miincllcn 1860.
(2) WHar'tel Demosthenisehe (a) Slndien 1 (on 01'. 1--4), Wien
1877; (b) Antn'ige, ib. 1877. (3) GPUnger Zeitfolge der vier
ersten Dem. Reden (0r. 2 early in summer of 852, 0r. 1 in 351,
0r. 4 early in October 351, Or. 3 early in August 349), Miinchen
1880. (4) ABaz'an Zur C'hronologie ales Enbeischen Krieges u.
der Ol. Reden des Dem. (rev. in Bursian Jrihresb. 1889, i 211),
Wiener Studien vii 190-231, 1885. (5) PJDitges Philippisehe
Reden des Dem. , Koln 1887. (6) ALaudahn Bemerkzmg/en :u
den Dem. Staatsreden, Hildesheim 1900.
On the First Philipjeic (0r. 4)
(1) Ilsz Zeit-Beslimmnng der ersten Rede gegen Philippos
(latter half of 351), Miincheu 1857. (2) ASchaefer in Jah'rb.
f. cl. Phil. 79 (1859), 667 f (spring of 351). (3) Fuchs Zeit-
Bestimmnng u. s. w. (early in 851) refutes the dates of Bohnecke
(349--8) and Hadicke etc. (350--49 or 351-50), Tfibingen 1875.
(4) HSchefczik Ueber die Avassnngszeit n. s. w. (latter half
of 347), Troppau 1896. (5) JHBremi' des Dem. erste Phil.
Itede ist nur ein Ganzes, Ziirich 1819. (6) J'Held. 2 Proleg. et
Annotationcs, Breslau 1831. (7) MSeebeck2 Zeitschm'ft f. d.
AWS. , nos. 91--7, 1838. (8) Schfining Uebei die redne'rische
Knnst in der ersten Phil. , G'ottingen 1849. (9) Enaedicke1
de prima. Dem. Phil. (date winter 351--50), Berlin 1858. (10)
WDoehlel de Dem. Phil. orationum primal (date 351), Halle
1866. (11) HEichler2 Dem. erste Phil. noch eine Doppelrede
(rev.